PARLIAMENTARY UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr Head
for Bentley Mr Jettrey
Mr Nagler HKK 354/
RECEIV
Dew Richte пле
Thank you for your letter of 20 May.
Nagler
2 € AUG 1986
Taken
HOME OFFICE
QUEEN ANNE'S GATE
LONDON SWIH 9AT
26
=1 AUG 1986
I am naturally very grateful for the time and trouble taken by Clive and Colin Nicholls in setting out their views on the Home Secretary's extradition law reform proposals, and I hope that they will accept this as a reply to their separate letter to me.
-
I have to say that the main thrust of their argument that the problem with UK extradition law is not the prima facie requirement itself but the English rules of evidence is not shared by the European countries which commented on the Green Paper. Their strong view was that the requirement itself is an obstacle. I can see that reform of the rules of evidence might well mitigate the effect of the requirement but, for reasons I give below, I do not regard that as a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.
Let me first make clear what we are seeking to do. We intend to remove the prima facie requirement in respect of those countries with which we have most extradition traffic at present, essentially Western Europe and the United States. By introducing the changes described in the White Paper, we would expect to accede to the European Convention on Extradition, which would then become the extradition arrangement with all our partners in Europe (except the Republic of Ireland: article 28 of the Convention would enable us to continue with our backing of warrants procedure with that country). In the case of the United States, given their own domestic requirement to show "probable cause", we do not know whether they would be willing to have the prima facie requirement removed from the US/UK extradition treaty; this would be discussed following the passage of the legislation.
In the case of the other countries with whom we have extradition treaties which are more or less moribund, we would not expect to remove the prima facie requirement. Instead we would review all those treaties following the passage of the legislation, and if possible agree with those countries that any future extradition request should be dealt with on an ad hoc basis without a treaty. The power to extradite without a treaty will be provided in the new legislation, but we shall retain the prima facie requirement in such circumstances. I note your point about Nigeria, but that country is of course a designated Commonwealth country under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. In the White Paper we do not propose to remove the prima facie requirement in respect of the Commonwealth countries (although Colin and Clive Nicholls may wish to know that an Australian proposal to remove it from the Commonwealth extradition scheme is being discussed at the conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers in Harare).
It will be clear from what I have said that the proposal to abolish the prima facie requirement will apply only in respect of requests from foreign countries in whose criminal justice system we have full confidence . I strongly believe that we have
Richard Ottaway Esq MP